Primary Fishermen Cooperative Society Limited vs State Of Telangana

This writ petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamaus declaring the action of the official respondents in not allowing the petitioner society members to catch fish by considering the representation of the petitioner society dated 04.01.2022 as arbitrary, illegal and violation of law and consequently direct the respondent to permit the petitioner society to catch the fish.

Heard Sri Ravi Kumar Vadlakonda, learned counsel, representing Sri P. Sajan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner society submitted representation on 04.01.2022 to respondent No.5 requesting to allow the petitioner society members to catch the fish in Nandimedharam Reservoir. He further submits that members of the petitioner society are residents of Chamanapalli Village and their lands were acquired for Nandimedharam reservoir and they were paid nominal compensation by the Government and Nandimedharam back water covered the part of the village and they are catching fish in the said back waters since four (4) years.

He further submits that respondent No.6 society members are restraining the members of petitioner society from catching fish in back water of Nandimedharam project. After receiving representation dated 04.1.2022, respondent No.5 has not passed any order.

Respondent No.5 filed counter on his behalf and on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 also, wherein he specifically stated that the membership of the petitioner society is 17 as per the bye-laws of the society. The area of operation of the society consists of following village and tanks.

Name of the village

Name of the tank

Chamanpalli

Jonnakunta Mattu

Kalvakinda Mattu

Kothakunta

Appa Lodhi kunta

He further submits that the request of the petitioner society to permit them to catch the fish in the back water of Nandimedharam Reservoir was already rejected as the Nandimedharam Reservoir and tanks falls under area of operation of respondent No.6 society and no lands of the members of the petitioner society have been submerged in the said reservoir.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No.5 has not passed any order basing on the representation submitted by the petitioner society.

Per contra, the Learned Special Government Pleader submits that the petitioner society is not entitled for grant of fishing rights in back water of Nandimedharam Reservoir and the said reservoir and tanks under the area of operation of respondent No.6 society and respondent No.5 has already rejected the claim of the petitioner society and also issued notice dated 12.01.2022 and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable under law.

Admiteddly, respondent No.5 specifically stated in the counter affidavit that Nandimedharam Reservoir and tanks are not under the area of operation of the petitioner society but the same are under the area of operation of respondent No.6 society and no lands of the members of the petitioner society have been submerged in the said reservoir and the members of the petitioner society are not entitled to claim fishing rights in the said water body and further stated that the area of operation of the petitioner society consists of four tanks namely Jonnakunta Mattu, Kalvakinda Mattu, Kothakunta and Appa Lodhi Kunta respectively and Pedda cheruvu (Nandimedharam Reservoir) comes within the area of operation of respondent No.6 society and the same was not denied by the petitioner by filing any reply.

It is already stated supra that the petitioner is claiming fishing rights in back water of Nandimedharam Reservoir, whereas the respondent No.5 specifically denied the claim of the petitioner society on the ground that the said reservoir comes within the area of operation of respondent No.6 society. The dispute raised by the petitioner is purely disputed question of fact and that has to be resolved by the competent Court or Tribunal under the provisions of the Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 and the petitioner is not entitled to seek the relief sought in the writ petition by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedies as available under law. No costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.